Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - rqshades

Pages: [1]
Apocalypse World / Re: Question about Apocalypse World LE Playbooks
« on: October 04, 2011, 09:03:26 PM »
At last, my collection is complete!

That is, until Vincent releases another Limited Edition Playbook...

Speaking of which, are there any new LE Playbooks in the works?

Apocalypse World / Re: Question about Apocalypse World LE Playbooks
« on: October 04, 2011, 04:47:16 PM »
I'm in need of the Maestro D' and the Hoarder.

I can trade the Faceless, Marmot, Quarantine, or Touchstone for them.

If anyone is interested in an exchange, message me and we can swap via email. :D

Apocalypse World / Re: Improvements/Change Your Character To A New Type
« on: October 04, 2011, 01:23:09 PM »
It's very strictly for you to work out with your MC. We can tell you how we've done it in our games, between ourselves and our MCs, but we can't tell you what you and your MC should decide.
When I'm the MC, unless circumstances lead me to decide something different, my answer is: none of the new improvements are marked, and the player can choose ungiven future improvements if she wants to (because her character's already improved 5 times, obviously).

Ah, thank you very much for the quick reply, Vincent!

That would explain why the other threads touching on this never really gave an explicit conclusion. :-p

Apocalypse World / Improvements/Change Your Character To A New Type
« on: October 04, 2011, 01:04:40 PM »
I've seen a few posts about this before, but unfortunately they're all pretty muddled and never really concisely answer anything.  I'm wondering how changing character type affects Improvements on your new sheet.  So, I pose to you all the following scenario:


Let's say that I'm playing an Angel, and I've marked the following Improvements on The Angel sheet.

X get +1sharp (max sharp +3)
_ get +1cool (max cool +2)
X get +1hard (max hard +2)
_ get +1hard (max hard +2)
_ get +1weird (max weird +2)
X get a new angel move
_ get a new angel move
_ get 2 gigs (detail) and moonlighting
X get a move from another playbook
X get a move from another playbook
_ get +1 to any stat (max stat +3)
_ retire your character to safety
_ create a second character to play
_ change your character to a new type
_ choose 3 basic moves and advance them
_ advance the other 4 basic moves

Then for my sixth Improvement, let's say I mark "change your character to a new type" and I choose The Driver for my new playbook.

Can anyone show to me what the new Improvement box on The Driver sheet should have marked on it?

_ get +1cool (max cool +2)
_ get +1hard (max hard +2)
_ get +1hot (max hot +2)
_ get +1weird (max weird +2)
_ get a new driver move
_ get a new driver move
_ get 2 gigs (detail) and moonlighting
_ get a garage (workspace, detail) and crew
_ get a move from another playbook
_ get a move from another playbook
_ get +1 to any stat (max stat +3)
_ retire your character to safety
_ create a second character to play
_ change your character to a new type
_ choose 3 basic moves and advance them
_ advance the other 4 basic moves

Apocalypse World / Re: Frustrated
« on: September 17, 2011, 10:00:15 PM »
Wow, this kinda took off, didn't it?

I'm one of the other players, and I considered chiming in earlier to fill in some details that Urzae glossed over.  I decided not to, but looking at it now that might have been the wrong decision.

Anywho, probably the most significant bit that hasn't been spelled out is exactly how Urzae was handling Quitus' entrance into Par...

He strolls in through one of the main gates...
Declares that he was walking up to the first person he saw...
Turned out it was a sick townsperson (there's a plague that's wiping out this half of town)...
So Quitus punches the fellow in the throat, killing him...
Then declares that he's moving on to the first person he sees who isn't sick...
Asks this guy if there's any work to be had...
Then specifies that he's looking for assassin work...
The guy shrugs and says that there's been a farmers revolt in town, could be some work there...
Quitus offers no incentive for the guy to stick around or give more info, so the guy starts to walk off...
Quitus asks again about other work, but the guy keeps walking...
Urzae asks if the guy's still close enough to attack and goes for the kill...
Drops the guy to the ground in really bad shape, but gets the attention of surrounding guards (he is still in the vicinity of one of the main gates of the largest holding in the area)...
Bullets start peppering the ground around him...
MC lets him know that he's got time to move for cover or finish the guy, but not both...
Quitus elects to merc the downed guard, then turns to face the others...
Takes a good chunk of harm and gets knocked out...

So yeah, that was the "uppity" guard he ran across.

And with the whole "first person I see" bit and no attempt to interact with anyone beyond "hey, I'm looking for this" and "you die now," I didn't see the situation as the MC witholding information to screw Urzae over.  On the contrary, I saw Urzae being so recklessly aggressive and willfully oblivious to anything beyond getting what he wanted by force, that it seemed like Urzae was trying to screw Urzae over.

But yeah, those are some key details that didn't get fully explained.

Apocalypse World / Re: Understanding Basic Moves
« on: September 08, 2011, 10:49:44 AM »
Why wouldn't this just be an act under fire?  With the fire being the NPC's gunfire?

Well, it could be -- I don't really have enough information. A key design idea about Apocalypse World is that the moves are heavily dependent on the fictional detail; that makes bare-bones hypotheticals very difficult to answer. In an actual firefight, tables would be falling, people would be running, innocent bystanders would be dying horribly, and you, the PC, would presumably be DOING something, diving for cover or getting around the opponent's cover or digging in and calling for help or some sort of action that I could translate into acting under fire or whatever. If you just said "I stand there, where I am, and continue to fire?" Well, firstly, I'd be way more likely to call that trading harm for harm, as an MC, but if I were to pick a basic move, I'd probably pick seize by force again, and again ask you what you're actually trying to SEIZE.  The other thing is, as above, if I was running the beginning of the gunfight you've already chosen something to seize and so you can't just be like "I stand there and shoot." By the time you're "engaged in a firefight" you, mechanically, have probably already identified a goal and taken steps towards it, and the scene can build around that goal.

I hope that's clearer!

This sort of addresses my question about act under fire, but I wanted to clarify.

It sounds like you're saying that act under fire is more of a defensive/protective move.  I mean, I get that there will always be situational circumstances that can make moves behave in uncommon ways, but it would be uncommon for act under fire to be used offensively, right?

That's one of the main reasons that the consensus around here is that the Battlebabe is better at getting herself into trouble than getting herself out of it, right?

Apocalypse World / Re: Understanding Basic Moves
« on: September 06, 2011, 10:23:54 PM »
Both PCs can roll to seize by force, if both want to. There's only one exchange of harm, but both players' choices apply to it. In that case, if both take definite hold, it's the same as if neither do.
Ah, interesting.

For going aggro, the attacker should roll the move and the defender can roll to interfere, yes.
Sorry, I forgot about interfering when I posted.  We had a Hocus in the group who had Seeing Souls and liked marking experience, so we know all about interfering. ;-)

Acting under fire is a little bit iffier, since it has the potential to nullify the other player's move outright and you shouldn't let it do that. I use it only when the defender gets the initiative (not a technical term) on the attacker. Like, you go aggro on me, I force your hand and suck it up, I take the harm, and then maybe I can act under fire to get into hand range.

Make sense?
I guess this is the part where my lack of system mastery shows.  In that instance, would act under fire allow you to make the hand range attack, or do you have to follow that roll up with a separate move like seize by force?

That kind of raises a similar question of: Can act under fire be used offensively?

Also, I'm sure you get tired of hearing it lumpley, but it's pretty awesome that you're so active in the community here and give so much firsthand feedback about your game (which is also pretty awesome by the way).  Thanks!  :-)

Apocalypse World / Understanding Basic Moves
« on: September 06, 2011, 06:43:16 PM »
So far, our gaming group are loving the AW game system.  The flavorful and stylized text used in the rulebook really help add to the overall atmosphere of the game, and go a long way toward getting players to think like the characters themselves would think.

Unfortunately, that mostly clashes with the logical part of our brains that is actually trying to implement the rules.

So here are some questions that I would adore concise, flavorless answers to. :-p  (Below each question is what I have interpreted the answer to be based on my reading of the rulebook).  Some of the situations seem redundant, but I thought I should include them anyway due to my uncertainty of how the rules actually work.

1) I pull a gun on an NPC and start shooting.
I go aggro

2) An NPC and I both have guns pulled on each other and we start shooting at each other.
I sieze by force

3) An NPC and I are engaged in a fire fight, guns on both sides, and continue to fire at each other.
I sieze by force

4) An NPC pulls a gun on me and starts shooting, and I try to get out of the line of fire.
I act under fire

5) An NPC has been shooting at me, and continues to fire at me, and I'm trying to get out of the line of fire.
I act under fire

Now, as far as I understand, AW doesn't use opposed rolls - one player rolls and the success or failure of that roll determines just how the scene unfolds.  So does that mean the answer to all the above questions remains the same even if I'm acting against a PC?

Any help would be appreciated.  I just want to make sure that we're understanding the intent of the rules.  :-D

Apocalypse World / Re: Help, Interfere, and Hx
« on: August 30, 2011, 06:20:05 PM »
Ok, thanks a lot.  I was starting to question that it worked the way that I thought it did.

I guess it was that link in the Hx box "help or interfere; session end" that made me think it.

But thanks for the quick reply! :-)

Apocalypse World / Help, Interfere, and Hx
« on: August 30, 2011, 05:11:19 PM »
Hello all, I started playing AW about a month ago, and so far it's a blast!

Now, somewhere along the way, I got the idea that you marked Hx if someone helped or interfered with you.  The Hx box on each playbook even says "help or interfere; session end."

Am I imagining/misinterpreting this?

The thing that's got me questioning how it works is that I'm scouring the book and I can't find anywhere that it states how this mechanic works.  I mean, I found entries where it says that you roll Hx to help or interfere, and I would expect there to be a sentence following that which addressed marking Hx.  Alas, there is no such sentence there, nor anywhere else that I can seem to find.

Could anyone give me a page number?  Or was all of this in my head in the first place?

Pages: [1]